Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE:

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

REFUSAL TO REGISTER FOR CLASSES 36 AND 37 – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused for classes 36 and 37 because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3330583.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

A.  Two Part Analysis

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

1.  The Marks Are Confusingly Similar

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant’s mark MONDRIAN is confusingly similar to the registered mark MONDRIAN PROPERTIES because they both contain the dominant term MONDRIAN and PROPERTIES is a highly descriptive term that is disclaimed.  Although a disclaimed portion of a mark certainly cannot be ignored, and the marks must be compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

When applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.”  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The question is not whether people will confuse the marks, but whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods and/or services they identify come from the same source.  In re West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 468 F.2d 200, 201, 175 USPQ 558, 558-59 (C.C.P.A. 1972); TMEP §1207.01(b).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.2d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537, 540-41 (TTAB 1979); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis.  See TMEP §1207.01(b).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

2.  The Goods and/or Services are Related

 

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

Applicant’s services include “Real estate management services in connection with condominium and hotel properties” and “Real estate development services, namely, the development of mixed use hotel, condominium and commercial properties.”

 

Registrant’s services are “Development of residential and commercial real estate, excluding hotel and restaurant services.”

 

The services are related because they both include development of commerical real estate.  In addition, registrant’s real estate development services are related to applicant’s real estate management services.  Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely real estate development and real estate management, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broad. Corp.,60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

 

B.  Any Doubt Resolved in Favor of Registrant

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

 

OWNERSHIP OF PRIOR REGISTRATION

 

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2219088, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2219088.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES FOR INTERNATIONAL CLASS 43 MUST BE AMENDED

 

The wording “providing information about hotels, restaurants and tourism events for travelers via the internet” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not sufficiently indicate the specific information and may include services classified in more than one international class.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

 

Providing hotel rate comparison information via the internet, in international class 35.

 

Providing travel tour information via the internet, in international class 39.

 

Providing information regarding guided tours of museums via the internet, in international class 41.

 

Providing personalized information about hotels via the internet; providing information in the field of restaurant dining via the internet, in international class 43.

 

Please note that, while the identification of goods and/or services may be amended to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, adding to the goods and/or services or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

For assistance with identifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR A MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION

 

If applicant prosecutes this application as a combined, or multiple-class application, then applicant must comply with each of the requirements below for those goods and/or services based on actual use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a):

 

(1)        Applicant must list the goods/services by international class;

 

(2)        Applicant must submit a filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee already paid (current fee information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov); and

 

(3)        For each additional international class of goods and/or services, applicant must submit:

 

(a)        Dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class.  The dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application.;

 

(b)        One specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and/or services.  The specimen must have been in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen.  Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.  TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services.  TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.;

 

(c)        The following statement:  “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”; and

 

(d)        Verification of the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) (above) in an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33.  Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(5), 2.34(a)(1), 2.56(a), 2.71(c), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

With respect to the requirement in 3(b) above for a specimen for each class of goods and/or services, please note that the specimen(s) of record is acceptable for International Class(es) 43 only.  Applicant must submit additional specimens if other classes are added to the application.

 

SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN REQUIRED FOR INTERNATIONAL CLASS 37

 

The specimen is not acceptable for international class 37 because it does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of services.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

The specimen is not acceptable as evidence of actual service mark use for international class 37 because there is no indication in the specimen that applicant offers real estate development services under the mark MONDRIAN.  Thus, it fails to show proper use of the applied-for mark in the sale or advertising of the services. 

 

A specimen for a service mark must show use of the mark “in the sale or advertising of services.”  Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2).  Indeed, “[w]hile the nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimens, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the service activity.”  In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)).  There must be sufficient reference to the services in the specimen to create this association.  In re Monograms Am., Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317, 1318 (TTAB 1999); see TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.  If the specimen does not show the mark with reference to, or association with, the services, the specimen fails to show service mark usage.  See In re DSM Pharms., Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1623, 1625-26 (TTAB 2008).

 

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)  A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of services specified in the application; and

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33:  “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05.  If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 

Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the actual sale or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. 

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1).

 

Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a service mark.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Applicant may respond to the stated specimen refusal by submitting a verified substitute specimen or amending the application to an intent to use filing basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) by following the suggested directions below for responding either online or by mail. 

 

If applicant responds to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant should provide a substitute specimen as follows:  (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard questions to “submit a new or substitute specimen” and for a “signed declaration,” respectively; (2) attach a jpg or pdf file of the substitute specimen; and (3) select the statement that “The substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  However, if applicant is responding by amending the application to a Section 1(b) filing basis, applicant should do the following:  (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard questions to “add/modify dates of use” and for a “signed declaration,” respectively; (2) uncheck the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(a);” and (3) check the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(b).”  Whether submitting a substitute specimen or amending the filing basis to Section 1(b), applicant must also properly sign the declaration appearing towards the end of the TEAS response form.

To sign the declaration at the end of the TEAS response form, applicant can do one of the following:  (1) enter in the signature block any combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks that the filer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (/) symbols (e.g., /john doe/); (2) e-mail the completed form from within TEAS to a second party for his/her electronic signature, which will then be automatically returned to the original preparer for submission with the response form; or (3) attach a jpg or pdf image of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 together with a pen-and-ink signature.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(d), 2.59(a), 2.193(c)(1)(iii); TMEP §804.05.  When signing the declaration, applicant must either personally sign or manually enter his/her electronic signature and provide the date of “signing.”  TMEP §804.05; see TMEP §804.01(b).  Applicant should also set forth the signatory’s name and position beneath the signature.  See TMEP §§712 et seq., 804.05.

If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statement and/or declaration, or changing the filing basis, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov for technical assistance regarding the TEAS response form.

If applicant responds to this Office action on paper, via regular mail, applicant may provide a verified substitute specimen by checking the first statement below, personally signing and dating the declaration appearing below the statement, and submitting a substitute specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §§804.05, 904.05.  If applicant is responding by amending the application to a Section 1(b) filing basis, applicant may check the second statement below, and personally sign and date the declaration appearing below the statement.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.20; TMEP §§804.05, 806.03(c).

 

q         The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

q         Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.

 

The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

 

If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.

 

 

 

 

/Mark Sparacino/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 103

US Patent and Trademark Office

571-272-9708

 

 

 

RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: Applicant should file a response to this Office action online using the form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail.  For technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned examining attorney.  Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail; the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.

 

If responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name, title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.  Please use the following address: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.

 

STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.  When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.